Brown is quoted as saying: "My beef is with people who have taken [religion] out of the 'sacred' sphere and used it instead as a political tool. Having done that denigrates religion." That sounds at first as though she esteems religion and wants to safeguard it against being abused. But not so quick. The article goes on:
Brown has strong convictions when it comes to keeping religion out of government. She would like to spread the word that even people without religion have morals. Brown believes the secular people her group represents can work side by side with religious people.In other words, religion is fine as long as it stays in its place - the private sphere. As long as your religion is confined to personal ethics and feelings it's OK. But if it maintains, as Christianity does, that it is a source of knowledge and thus has bearing on all aspects of life including social issues, then it has overstepped the bounds secularists have established. And all this is done in the name of rationality, neutrality, and objectivity. Ms. Brown will be seeking to influence public policy issues such as stem cell research, access to emergency contraception, and physician assisted suicide and well she should. But she and those she represents should readily admit the philosophical (dare I say, "religious"?) system that guides their reasoning (see my previous post, I Believe in Matter Almighty). [HT: The Revealer]
1 comment:
Religion must be kept out of government. That was the intent of the founding fathers when they added the first amendment to the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Their ancestors fled religious persecution. If we again begin to persecute people who believe differently, where will they flee to?
Incidentally, I'm having a guest into my Sunday School this Sunday to address this very issue.
Post a Comment